I don't know, I've often wondered what else could be "revealed" in the newspaper article...what could possibly be so scandalous?? I suppose it's hinted in the series that he's dabbled with drugs in the past so could be something to do with that I suppose.

I think there must be something drug-related in Sherlock's past, remember all the hints they have given us since A study in pink and specially in A Scandal in Belgravia.
Anyway, something probably stupid has crossed my mind, but I'll tell you just in case. Sherlock gets really angry at Kitty when she mentions that his relationship with John may be not just platonic and suggests it could be exposed as a gay one. We know (and Sherlock knows) that's something that upsets John a lot, so his reaction may be justified by that. But... what if Sherlock has really had some sort of gay relationship in the past? We don't know, probably it's unlikely because of his asexuality/sex repression/whatever you want to call it. But I think there has to be something about that too.

I wonder what it was that made Sherlock such an asexual person in the first place?

That's so true. They'd make a big deal out of all the shocking aspects, not just one of them.

That scene when John is having a go at Mycroft for giving Moriarty Sherlock's "whole life story" has always seemed a little weird to me...I mean what's so special about his life story...born, grew up, went to school, went to Uni, became a detective...I've always been of the impression that there must have been something vaguely interesting or juicy...otherwise the rest of his life story wouldn't be important, they'd just write about the fact that he was a fake who made up the crimes, they wouldn't need any other random information.

Sherlock Holmes wrote:

That scene when John is having a go at Mycroft for giving Moriarty Sherlock's "whole life story" has always seemed a little weird to me...I mean what's so special about his life story...born, grew up, went to school, went to Uni, became a detective...I've always been of the impression that there must have been something vaguely interesting or juicy...otherwise the rest of his life story wouldn't be important, they'd just write about the fact that he was a fake who made up the crimes, they wouldn't need any other random information.

The fact that Moriarty can sit and tell stories about things that DID happen in Sherlock's childhood, whether it be when he fell out of Mrs Snodgrass's tree and broke her prize rose bush or when he won the Swimming Trophy in his senior year WILL make anything else he says about him credible. Because Mrs Snodgrass and the school teachers he had will know that THOSE things are true; hence people make the assumption that EVERYTHING is true. (I mean who would remember something like that un;ess they were there? He wasn't famous so no-one would be watching the things he did let alone recording it, just in case)
That's how most of these sensationalist pieces are written, specifics from the past give the storyteller more credibility.

There doesn't have to be anything more and frankly if there WAS more it would make it sound contrived and lose any credibility built up.

Last edited by kazza474 (March 30, 2012 11:50 am)

Yes Kazza's right. If you have enough verifiable facts in the article people will also believe the lie hidden within.

This is just a wild guess, but has anyone wondered, if Sherlock was speaking from his own experience, when he speculated, how the little boy, 'this particular little boy, who reads all the spy books', might react,when he sees the outline of a man with  a weapon through the glass door? I can't recall any spy books on his table, only spy toys. And if you see the ouline of a shadow through a glass door, it's quite a leap to think immediately of an abduction. Sherlock really seems to identify with the little boy. So far, there was no indication in the show, that Sherlock has special insights into kids.In the contrary, he's quite harsh with the kids in Scandal, who ask about their  dead grandfather. Also the Bluebell case in Hounds doesn't interest him because of the poor kid, who lost her pet.
Now, if something frightening like an abduction  had happened to Sherlock as a kid, Mycroft might have told Moriarty about it, amongst other things concerning Sherlock. If Moriarty had arranged the abduction in order to smear Sherlock as a fraud - and, we know, he did just that - the whole thing would gain much more punch, if Rich Brook told Kitty that fact of Sherlocks life, which could be easily verified as well, and people would read about it in the paper the very next day.

Last edited by sherlocked (April 4, 2012 8:53 pm)

Maybe, Sherlock  liked 'Treasure Island' as much as I did, when I was a kid (and still do). Long John Silver would have been a worthy opponent. What a great villain!

Ha, ha, just, when you think, you have a new idea, you find out in the days of www. that someone else was there before you!

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Fridge/Sherlock

"During the case with the abducted children, Sherlock, out of the blue, starts digging out details from his imagination - he talks passionately about how the little boy obsessed with spy stories would deal with the second or so of time between seeing his kidnapper and being taken, he re-enacts the kidnapper silhouetted as he approached the door. What are the chances that Moriarty deliberately set the crime up to mirror an experience from Sherlock's own childhood? Considering that Sherlock's family is rich and powerful, the youngest child getting kidnapped for ransom is not much of a stretch, and he would absolutely be the type to try and leave a meaningful trail behind. Moriarty knows Sherlock's life story by now and would undoubtedly delight at the chance to give the crime a personal touch (as with Carl Powers's trainers). Most importantly, Sherlock identifying with the victim causes him to come to his conclusions in a way that's even less transparent than usually - he really does seem to know things he could only have known if he'd been there. Since Moriarty wants the police to start suspecting Sherlock, this would fit right into his plans. It would also explain why Sherlock is so unexpectedly vicious to the teacher who was supposed to be watching the children."

The whole website is worth checking out. Much food for tought. Drawback: You have to register in order to unlock the spoiler protection, but it's easy and totally worth it, if only for the thread "WMF (Wild Mass Guessing)", but also for "Fridge Brilliance" and "Fridge Horror".